The Goebbels diary plays an important role in a new Holocaust propaganda book.

In "´Davon haben wir nichts gewusst!´ Die Deutschen und die Judenverfolgung 1933-1945" by Peter Longerich, which isn´t even 1 year old (but written between 2002 and 2005, according to the author) Goebbels is singled out as the primary evil nazi, whereas Hitler or Rosenberg are barely mentioned. The sources that are supposed to support that are "protocols from Goebbels´ daily propaganda conference during the years 1941/42" - these protocols, like the glass plates, are in Moscow - and, most importantly, the diary.

Although the title ("We didn´t know! The Germans and the Persecution of Jews" if anybody doesn´t understand) suggests that the book is about how ordinary Germans reacted to the "persecution of Jews", a more important theme of the book is, to quote the author, "whether or not the persecution of the Jews under the NS-dictatorship was taking place in public and openly advertised by the regime".

And so this question is being examined. The interesting thing is that in the crucial chapters - "Die ´Endlösung´ als öffentliches Geheimnis" and "Kraft durch Furcht: die Drohung mit der jüdischen Rache" - the "regime" is being investigated mainly by means of investigating the mentioned "protocols" and the diary.

Apart from this, Longerich presents newspaper about Jewish power in the enemy countries - these articles deal with the Jewish character of communism, the Jews behind Churchill, whether or not Roosevelt was a Jew etc. and they appear rather sensible.

If somebody were to write a history of the neocon regime under Bush, they would not use a diary of, say, Dick Cheney to tell us what had happened. Such a diary could only tell us something about Cheney´s private thoughts, or what Cheney wanted to write in his more or less private diary, and, maybe, something about his relationship with other leaders. If you wanted to tell the world about what happened under this regime, you would write about that, and the content of Cheney´s diary would only be of minor interest.

The fact is of course that you can spin the entire history about NS and the NS relationship to the Jews by making the Goebbels diary the basis of the historical study. Longerich uses the diary to claim that Goebbels had a "covering up tactics" - because the diary shows how much he really knew about the murder of the Jews (page 212). (Among other similar examples).

Without the "protocols", and above all without the diary, Longerich´s book falls apart. It would barely be possible to spin the rest into something he or other Holocaust propagandist could really use.

Goebbels has become the great evil guy of NS, not just in this book, the man who was really behind the Holocaust. Without the diary fraud, there is no great evil guy of NS anymore, and no prominent National Socialist behind the Holocaust anymore.

I think it´s fair to say that I was more correct than I knew myself when I initially wrote that there could be no revisionist victory if this diary was not taken care of. It´s not that it is the most important thing, it´s just that it is the only important thing, the only important fraud, that has not been discredited by true research.

Naturally you can have a half victory, or a 90% victory, or a 99% victory, but who wants that when you can also have a 100% victory.

And then people could of course go on and try to find out what really happened during National Socialism, because something tells me we don´t really know.

Reinhard wrote:2. There is one point in Ingrid Weckert's article, where she is obviously wrong:

In her comment on Goebbels' diary entry on November 10th, 1938 (“The condition of the [...] diplomat vom Rath still is very serious” [in the morning] and “in the afternoon, the death of the German diplomat [Ernst vom Rath] is reported”) she writes that vom Rath had already died the day before, Nov. 9th.

It would still be more logical if the diary had said: vom Rath died yesterday. Goebbels ought to have known that in the morning the day after his death.

I do not think there can be any doubt that the entries about the Kristallnacht are a fraud. What about the talk about a certain group named after Hitler which according to the diary ravaged synagogues during the Kristallnacht, yet didn´t even exist at the time, as Weckert says? To me it seems that Weckert is right when she makes this and a number of similar assertions, and if she is, the Kristallnacht entries were not written by Goebbels.

Reinhard wrote:...

So the “source” for that diary-entry of March 27th, 1942 is a carbon copy of some typewritten document which was found by some obscure rag collector lying around in the courtyard of Goebbels' ministry, which the Soviets didn't care about and was presented by some (jewish, I presume) rag collectors and waste paper dealers to an US-journalist.

I believe the US journalist was the hoaxter. Journalism is and was at the center of propaganda and so-called "mind control", and journalists are either naive or professional liars. I think Lochner and Mason were professional liars and that this rag collector is an invention of their lies and never existed. Lochner supposedly also was the man behind another fraud, a certain L-3 document, as has been said in this thread.

This also is the only comment I want to make to driansmith´s informative contributions. The fact that the two men who "discovered" the part containing the 27.03.42 entry were American journalists would in itself be enough to cast major doubt on the story.

For instance, I recall that Krege GPR scan from Treblinka that was supposed to prove the case of the exterminationists? And then Gerdes and I and others were trying to figure out where that scan originally came from, the ety.com site or Irving first? And if the latter, where Irving got it from and why we should accept it as real or something like that. I don't think that issue was ever resolved.

I also recall some saying that, with respect to the alleged authenticity of the Goebbels diaries, Irving leaves much to be desired. As you will recall in my THINGS HAVE CHANGED thread (start here near the end of the topic for when I get into the Goebbels business), Weckart and Rudolf had some good questions about the authenticity of those diaries. I mentioned this and Muehlenkamp attacked me for it by saying this. http:// r odohforum.yuku.com/reply/245789/t/This-little-Drew-J-freak-seems-to-be-really-pissed-about-me-.html#reply-245789

The finding of these glass plates in Moscow was the final confirmation that Elke Fröhlich’s reconstruction of the diaries’ provenance was correct and that the accounts of the various eyewitnesses involved in the making of these diaries were accurate. One of the eyewitnesses was Richard Otte, the stenographer who had taken down Goebbels’ dictations and transcribed them on a Continental typewriter with oversized types such as Goebbels had in his bureaus. Otte made two typescripts, one original and one carbon copy, of each dictation, both using the same strong paper with the watermark “Normal 1 Hoesch Koenigstein” and the same color for the typewriter ribbon and the carbon paper for making the carbon copy (Fröhlich, as above, page 498). Another eyewitness was the man contacted by Goebbels to make the copies of his diary entries in an early version of the microfiche procedure, Dr. Joseph Goebel. The pages were photographed with a so-called Goebel-Planfilm camera (one of Goebel’s inventions) in the artists’ wardrobe of a private theater that Goebbels had in his apartment in the Hermann-Göring-Strasse in Berlin. The copying was done by two photo labor assistants, Miss Gertrud Maschke and Mrs. Erika Stöcken, under the supervision of Otte, whose full-time job of taking down and transcribing Goebbels’ dictations was taken over by one Otto Jacobs during this time. The negative glass plates in the format 14.5 x 10.5 cm with 45 takes per plate were placed into a box with steel bands and supposedly buried by an officer near Postdam shortly before the Soviets conquered Berlin. Microfiche copies of some of these glass plates, checked and found to be copies of original glass plates made in 1944/45, were handed to the West German editor Hoffmann und Campe in 1972 by journalist Ernst Fischer (Fröhlich, as above, pages 498/499), who had received them from authorities of the German Democratic Republic. The East German authorities had in 1969 come into the possession of microfilms made by the Soviets after the conquest of Berlin (a high-ranking Soviet visitor brought them as a gift on a visit to the GDR – Fröhlich, page 501) and were not feeling to comfortable about having them on their hands. An edition of Goebbels’ diaries in the GDR was considered inconvenient for political reasons, and it was thus decided to get the microfiche copies to the west against good western currency, through a West German journalist (Fischer) who was a known anti-fascist and could thus be trusted not to use this material for pro-Nazi purposes (Fröhlich, pages 504/505). Until then, undestroyed fragments of typescript found by Mrs. Else Goldschwamm after the war and handed by her to the Munich Institute of Contemporary History in 1961 (Fröhlich, pages 500/501), as well as about 7,000 pages from the carbon copy handed to American authorities by a used paper dealer, currently stored in the US at Stanford University and partially published by Louis P. Lochner in 1948 (Fröhlich, page 501) were considered to be the only surviving parts of the Goebbels diaries (Fröhlich, page 504). The microfiche copies handed to Hoffmann & Campe by Ernst Fischer in 1972 were found to match the mentioned earlier finds in that they contained entries also included in the latter (Fröhlich, page 501). The bulk of the glass plates made by Dr. Goebel, however, was thought to be lost until 1992.

So Roberto wrote off Weckart's concerns as nonsense because Irving wasn't going to dignify a nobody or something like that. Which isn't a fair retort, or even a retort at all. But to his credit, Roberto digs up other articles too. Good for him. But keep in mind, this is not the only time Weckart and Irving have butted heads. Weckart completely owned David Irving on what really happened at kristallnacht.http://www.hilpers.com/1166190-who-was- ... t-goebbels

Maybe he hasn't taken it well since. So what so you board members? Do we buy the glass plates story? Why not?

It would still be more logical if the diary had said: vom Rath died yesterday. Goebbels ought to have known that in the morning the day after his death.

I do not think there can be any doubt that the entries about the Kristallnacht are a fraud. What about the talk about a certain group named after Hitler which according to the diary ravaged synagogues during the Kristallnacht, yet didn´t even exist at the time, as Weckert says? To me it seems that Weckert is right when she makes this and a number of similar assertions, and if she is, the Kristallnacht entries were not written by Goebbels.

Very good point. I never considered that.

Only what was this group supposed to be called anyway that apparently didn't exist when the hoaxsters claim it in fact did? When did it really begin? A little history on that and further confirmation of this quoted statement above should help further bury the 'authenticity' claim of the Goebbels diaries.

Argument 3“On 27 March 1942, Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary that ‘barbaric methods,’ which he preferred not to describe, were used against the Jews, and that 60% of them would be liquidated; the other 40% would be used for labor.”

AnswerNo revisionist has ever been able to furnish a satisfactory explanation for this passage. But let us compare it with what Goebbels wrote in the same diary only 20 days earlier, on 7 March 1942:[40]

“There are about 11 million Jews in Europe [a heavily inflated figure!]. Later it will be necessary to concentrate them in the East. After the war some island such as Madagascar can be assigned to them.”

The deportation of the European Jews to Madagascar was not Dr. Goebbel’s brainchild. The so-called “Madagascar plan” was taken very seriously by the National Socialist leadership, but finally abandoned as unworkable.[41] Now, mainstream “holocaust” historians may argue that the German government dropped this plan between 7 and 27 March and decided to exterminate the Jews instead. This would explain the discrepancy between the two diary entries. However, this argument would be untenable for the following reason: According to the “holocaust” story, the first “extermination camp,” Chelmno, started to function as early as in December 1941. Since it is unthinkable that a local commander would have set up an “extermination camp” without an order from the highest authorities, an extermination policy must already have existed in late 1941, if the claims about Chelmno are correct (which the revisionists dispute[42]). Being one of the leading figures of the Third Reich, Dr. Goebbels would of course have known about such an extermination policy, so how do the “holocaust” historians explain the fact that he spoke of the concentration of the Jews in the East and advocated assigning them Madagascar (or another island) as late as on 7 March 1942?

Let’s sum up: While the revisionists are unable to explain the second entry in Goebbels’ diary, the “holocaust” historians are at a loss to explain the first one! It is unlikely that this mystery will ever be solved.

So this change of subject is the best that Mr. Graf has got? For the entry of 7 March 1942 there may be several explanations. One is that a "territorial" solution implying deportation to the occupied eastern territories was definitely dropped only a short time before the start of deportations from Lublin to Belzec. Another is that the killing program advanced step by step and that, while the decision to wipe out the Jews in the occupied Soviet territories had already been taken in July/August 1941, Gauleiter Greiser's program of wiping out a large portion of the Warthegau's Jews at Chelmno was under way since December 1941 with Himmler's blessing (apparently Hitler gave his paladins such a high degree of autonomy that this was enough) and commencing the extermination of the General Government's Jews had been decided upon pursuant to Secretery of State Bühler's request at the Wannsee Conference, the "Madagascar" solution had not yet been ruled out for the Jews of Germany and other countries and there was an idea of keeping them in the eastern territories vacated of the local Jews until the war's end.

Still promoting the Wansee hoax? I guess that's all they have.

Jonathan Harrison meanwhile pointed out the following, in his post of April 26, 2010 11:51 AM:

"On 14.12.41. Goebbels wrote that "in many cases" the deportation of French Jews would be "a death sentence". So he already knew at that point that many Jews would die, albeit not all Jews.

Death sentence, why?

On 7.3.42. he is referring to Madagascar, but combining that quote with 14.12.41. shows that by then he knew that Madagascar would have been a place where many of the Jews died.

Based on what? So now the exterminationists have changed stories? They used to say Madagascar was a plan to move them, and then the Nazis changed their plans and decided to murder them in Eastern European camps. What proof do we have that Goebbles KNEW Jews would die in Madagascar? Under what conditions?

By 27.3.42. he knows that Madagascar is no longer on the table and that 60% of the deported Jews are being killed in the General Government.

It's not actually a huge shift in knowledge. His knowledge has simply become more specific about how, where and when "many" Jews will die, and the "many" has become "60%"."

Sounds like more ad hoc explanations to me here.

In an earlier comment on Keith's blog Everybody loves my holocaust revisionism show - what am I doing wrong?! Jonathan had written the following:

"Graf omits the context of the 7.3.42. entry: Goebbels is paraphrasing a "detailed report [I have just read] from the SD and police regarding the Final Solution of the Jewish question." We do not know when this report was written, whether the report was using camouflage language, or whether this particular SD and police unit had been briefed on the new central policy.

So you admit you don't know if euphemisms are being used. Funny, I thought you extermination theorists were always able to sniff it out. Guess now you have to engage in guess work which you admittedly do below.

There are two logical alternatives:

1) Goebbels was not brought into the picture concerning Aktion Reinhard until after the deportations commenced in mid-March 1942. Even on 27.3.42., his knowledge seems incomplete, as he only refers to the General Government, and Goebbels’ 60-40 split over-states the number who would be selected for labour.

2) His statement of 7/3/42 is referring to the 40% who Goebbels says on 27/3/42 would remain alive.

I think 1) is more likely."

Likely based on what? What is this detailed report about an alleged final solution referring to extermination? Others have already proven it can't be Wansee.

Roberto always calls me a coward for not coming to his place. Nice try. Let's look at what Roberto and/or his associates have done in the past to others. Didn't he track down a Revisionist's IP or something and then figure out where he worked and tried to get him fired from his job. Or was it someone else? I do remember something to that affect on this board and I'm trying to recall what it was and where it was on this board. If someone could dig it up that would be great.

Even if Roberto were to deny what I am referring to, it matters little in the end for the following reason: As you can see why I won't dignify his stupid requests to come on his board. Every time he responds to me, he cuts the argument out from himself that it matters what venue I post on. No matter where I'd be, he'd still have to copy and paste. He accuses me though of hiding in a place where he can't post. Funny. That never stopped me from going to his board to read him as he goes to my codoh place of residence to read me. So I guess it all works out. Once again, he makes a mountain out of a mole hill. He loves to recycle the same old shit again and again

so how do the “holocaust” historians explain the fact that he spoke of the concentration of the Jews in the East and advocated assigning them Madagascar (or another island) as late as on 7 March 1942?

Hitler himself mentioned in his tabletalk Africa (on May 29th, 1942) and Madagascar (»or another Jewish national state«) on July 24th, 1942 as a place where the Jews were to be deported after the war twice after the Goebbels diary entry of March 7th, 1942.

And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed, if all records told the same tale, then the lie passed into history and became truth. »Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.«
Orwell 1984

Roberto is saying that despite what Graf raised about the date Chelmno started and the Goebbels diary entry in question, there were plans in 1941 to engage in mass murders of Jews. In other words, he has an explanation for Graf. He gives out hypelinks to here.

Documents about the murderous purpose of SK Lange http://h olocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/07/documents-about-murderous-purpose-of.html

Also, Roberto says that the Nazis, despite wanting to resettle the Jews in Madagascar at one time, they still expected the Jews to die of disease there. In other words, Roberto says the Madagascar plan was a relocation program disguised as a clever, eventual genocide. How would they die in Madagascar you ask? Roberto says because many of the deportees would die of privation and disease. "the settlement of millions of additional inhabitants on a relatively small island, moreover if they were Europeans transferred to a tropical environment, would result in a very large mortality from lack of food and tropical diseases." I can't say I find anything outlandish about this line of inductive logic. Can you fellow CODOH members?

Roberto then talks about the alleged authenticity of the Wansee documents.

As to the "others", all they have proven is their own idiocy by claiming that a document consistent with other documentary evidence and expressly confirmed as authentic by (one of) its author(s) – the Wannsee Conference Protocol – is a "fabrication", presumably based on nothing other than the document’s supposedly not complying with bureaucratic rules that Nazi bureaucrats are as (un)likely to have necessarily complied with as any other bureaucrats in the world at any given time.

Consistent with isn't good enough Roberto unless you already accept what you have yet to prove in the document itself. That is talks about planned genocide. You shouldn't beg the question like that. The other documents that talk about Wansee being a planned genocide meeting can't be fakes either.

Roberto then quotes from a director of the Wansee Conference Museum who says:

The minutes of the Wannsee Conference are the most important of the many documents that have come down to us, and describe the crimes committed under the pens of the actual authors: the minutes prove that from January 1942, at the highest levels of government, it had been decided that not a single European Jew should survive deportation and slave labor, and that “those who resist” should be “handled in an appropriate fashion”, to prevent absolutely, contrary to earlier phases of the persecution of the Jews, “a Jewish renaissance” (Minutes, p.. This is the reason that the Wannsee minutes are central to the claims forgery by Holocaust deniers. They ignore the documents and quotes from the same period, which refer to the Wannsee “Secretaries of State conference”. They ignore that Eichmann himself confirmed in court the authenticity of the minutes and identified its authors.

Eichmann was an obvious liar on the stand. He confessed to numbers of dead and things that were impossible just like Hoess was tortured into confessing. Many nazis were tortured into confessing outlandish things. I'm afraid we'll have to do better than some man's word.

He was a stooge and he was using those absurd numbers to prove it (IF he really said it)

Apparently a Nazi witness at the Nuremberg trials, Captain Dieter Wisliceny, quoted Eichmann as boasting: "I laugh when I jump into the grave because of the feeling that I have killed 5,000,000 Jews. That gives me great satisfaction and gratification.""

After Eichmann's kidnapping, at his trial in Israel, Eichmann also signed a confession to the effect of killing five million. The problem with this is that no mainstream historian any longer claims such a high figure for Auschwitz or for Eichmann. Instead the figure is generally put at around ONE million murders at Auschwitz. The 3 or 4 million difference is at least half of the alleged six-million total so this is not an insignificant matter. Were Wisliceny and Eichmann tortured to obtain such confessions? Why is there not a single uncontested document to support such extravagant claims?

The Nuremberg quote is in any event suspect because Wisliceny was fighting for his life. He was later extradited to Czechoslovakia and hanged. His statement was written in ENGLISH, not his native German. British historian, David Irving, pointed out a major error in his statement that casts further doubt on whether Wisliceny actually wrote the confession himself. See: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Wislicen ... 91145.html

A man will say anything when interragators are crushing his testicles. Thats why Rudolf Hoess confessed to killing 2 million at Auschwitz, even though the number has been since brought down to well under 1 million.

Continuing on with that director from the Wansee Museum.

In 1947, the document was discovered in two Foreign Ministry files marked “final solution of the Jewish question”. The alleged forger or forgers would have had to fake hundreds of pages, together with handwritten notes and initials of then staff of the ministry that accompanied the minutes from Luther’s office, which have come down to us. A physical examination of the minutes themselves and the accompanying documents, the registration numbers, the margin notes and the signatures, all confirm their authenticity, in the opinion of the scientific staff of the political archives of the Foreign Ministry, beyond a shadow of a doubt. In addition, it is absurd to take account of copies or fabricated collages after the discovery of the original, in order to prove its lack of authenticity or to make them look like fake variations of the original, to make that look like the work of forgers.

What is being said above in the quote is wrong. They are trying to imply that in order to fake Wansee, they would have to mess with hundreds of other documents to make it match the Wansee thing. Which is absurd. All that needs to be for a forgery, is not to create said forgery, and then hundreds of other documents around it to make them all match and thus make Wansee look real. Just mess with wansee and make it look like the other documents that are supposed to be real with notes, initials, whatever other characteristics there are on the other pages. That's the simple way to make one forgery, and the best way. We aren't even shown to us what these unique markings on other allegedly authentic documents are that you also find on the surviving Wansee page. Copy number 16 out of 30 originals. We are simply told about them and expected to take them on faith. We are however informed about many contradictions and inconsistencies in this essay however. Not to mention poor German! http://www.codoh.com/found/fndwannsee.html

It's interesting since we have the original document which postponed the conference to a later date, see scan here - http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/Note080142.html - but not the original meeting notes. Anyone seen the **original** Wannsee Conference minutes?

As you scroll down that topic, only one original Wansee paper has survived. 30 copies were made and only number 16 survived. The topic has the following Staglich quote.

a) The Wannsee Protocol

For decades, it was claimed that the extermination of the Jews was decided at the Wannsee Conference in Berlin of 20 January 1942. Anyone who reads the (alleged) protocol of that conference (17), will discover that it contains no mention of any physical extermination of the Jews, nothing about gas chambers, and speaks only of "evacution" and "resettlement". The orthodox historians, as usual, offer the lazy excuse that these are code words for extermination.

Even if this document were genuine, it would in no way constitute proof for any extermination of the Jews, but rather for their deportation, which is not disputed by any revisionist. But the Wannsee Protocol is a rather crude forgery, as shown by several revisionist researchers, in greatest detail by Johannes P. Ney. The forgery is proven by absuridities of content (for example grossly exaggerated numbers of Jews living in Europe), as well as formal errors.

30 copies of the Wannsee Protocol are supposed to have been prepared. Of these 30 copies, only 1, the 16th, has survived, quite remarkably, in several different versions, in which SS is written sometimes in runes, and sometimes in normal script.

Even the exterminationists are distancing themselves further and further from the Wannsee protocol. In the Canadian Jewish News of 20 January 1992, Israeli Holocaust Specialist Yehuda Bauer, calls the belief that the conference arrived at any decision to exterminate the Jews, a "silly story". According to him, the whole caste of historians just blabbered a silly story for decades, like parrots. The "silly story" also appears in all schoolbooks.

Scroll down in that topic, you find that even extermination theorists are backing away from Wansee. It's very interesting.

There is an entry in what is called Goebbels diary from March 7 1942 mentioning a detailed report regarding the 'final solution.' Let's quote Jonathan Harris again.

"Graf omits the context of the 7.3.42. entry: Goebbels is paraphrasing a "detailed report [I have just read] from the SD and police regarding the Final Solution of the Jewish question." We do not know when this report was written, whether the report was using camouflage language, or whether this particular SD and police unit had been briefed on the new central policy.

I asked about this detailed report and this is what I got from Roberto in a reply.

What is this detailed report about an alleged final solution referring to extermination? Who said anything about a "detailed report about an alleged final solution referring to extermination"? Goebbels just mentioned a detailed. report "from the SD and police regarding the Final Solution of the Jewish question". JH reasoned that said report may have used camouflage language, or that the particular SD and police unit that wrote the report may have not been briefed on the new central policy. Drew J obviously didn’t pay attention, or then he is too dumb to understand the argument.

I then said, "Others have already proven it can't be Wansee."

Roberto then says,

I thought even an ignoramus like Drew J would have realized by know that the Wannsee Conference Protocol was not a "report from the SD and police regarding the Final Solution of the Jewish question".

Hmmm. I thought that is what I was getting at when I used a bit of rhetorical force/opportunity to bring back the evidence that Wansee is bullshit as the exterminationists understand it in the form of those three anti Wansee links given earlier. Let's read my words again carefully since Roberto obviously did not. IT CAN'T BE WANSEE. Shall I repeat that? IT CAN'T BE WANSEE.

Since I was left with nothing due to this report not being Wansee, I asked for more details about it so that it could be examined as Wansee was done by Staglich and others like the author of this essay. http://www.codoh.com/found/fndwannsee.html Upon me asking for more details this is what Roberto said to me.

All we know is that it was a "detailed report from the SD and police regarding the Final Solution of the Jewish question", as Goebbels called it.

So in other words, we know jack shit about it. Now that the January 1942 Wansee nonsense is out of the way, all we have from this March 7 1942 Goebbles entry is mention of a document that can't be examined and no one has seen. Not to mention that it comes from a diary with certain entries of questionable origin. Recall how Mr. Ney of this essay [ http://www.codoh.com/found/fndwannsee.html ] talked about contradictions and internal absurdities? Well we have the same kind of thing with certain Goebbels diaries. Remember what others said earlier about the entries concerning Kristallnacht, something which Ingrid Weckart BLEW WIDE OPEN TO THE WORLD?

Drew J wrote:

It would still be more logical if the diary had said: vom Rath died yesterday. Goebbels ought to have known that in the morning the day after his death.

I do not think there can be any doubt that the entries about the Kristallnacht are a fraud. What about the talk about a certain group named after Hitler which according to the diary ravaged synagogues during the Kristallnacht, yet didn´t even exist at the time, as Weckert says? To me it seems that Weckert is right when she makes this and a number of similar assertions, and if she is, the Kristallnacht entries were not written by Goebbels.

Very good point. I never considered that.

Only what was this group supposed to be called anyway that apparently didn't exist when the hoaxsters claim it in fact did? When did it really begin? A little history on that and further confirmation of this quoted statement above should help further bury the 'authenticity' claim of the Goebbels diaries.

I would like for someone to dig up this information since I wouldn't know where to look. I would love to ask this post's author for more details but he only made about 10 or 12 posts and then left the board forever over two years ago. But I wouldn't be surprised if he was telling the truth. If he was, then it would be another nail in the coffin for the exterminationists. It would mean that a likely fake diary entry is talking about a document no one has seen and examined. Gee, should we be surprised to have a fake diary entry mention a document no one has seen or examined? Probably because it isn't real either?

Documents about the murderous purpose of SK Lange http://h olocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/07/documents-about-murderous-purpose-of.html

I will come back to these later as it is late where I am now as I type this. Although I can't help but wonder about the likely questionable origin of these documents either given what was exposed as phony about Wansee and certain Goebbels entries about Kristallnacht.

In other words, Roberto says the Madagascar plan was a relocation program disguised as a clever, eventual genocide. How would they die in Madagascar you ask? Roberto says because many of the deportees would die of privation and disease. "the settlement of millions of additional inhabitants on a relatively small island [...]"

Uhm, and what's the difference to - let's say - the Gaza Strip?

Roberto then talks about the alleged authenticity of the Wannsee documents.

As to the "others", all they have proven is their own idiocy by claiming that a document consistent with other documentary evidence and expressly confirmed as authentic by (one of) its author(s) – the Wannsee Conference Protocol – is a "fabrication", presumably based on nothing other than the document’s supposedly not complying with bureaucratic rules that Nazi bureaucrats are as (un)likely to have necessarily complied with as any other bureaucrats in the world at any given time.

Mühlenkamp, you do assume that Heydrich was present - and not only present, but in fact chairman - at that alleged conference, don't you?Can you then explain to us, why he isn't even mentioned in the list of attendants of that mysterious conference?

Can you explain to us, why that strange "conference" began exactly at noon, followed by a "breakfast"? I would estimate the time needed for the "conference" being about 2 hours at least. What is the point of having "breakfast" at about 2 to 2.30 p.m., Mr. Mühlenkamp?

Can you explain to us, why nowhere in that flimsy "document" is mentioned who was the person who wrote that "protocol" and when the "conference" began and when it ended (an absolutely "must be" for a German protocol)?

Can you explain to us, why there is an obvious rupture in style in that "document"?

Can you explain to us, why there are two different ways of marking an enumeration in that "document". One according to the German way of doing that and the other being typically anglosaxon?

So, as others have said before (→ Roland Bohlinger/Johannes Peter Ney), perhaps there was a conference on or around 20. January 1942, perhaps it even was taking place at the location at the Wannsee, but it certainly had another topic then was claimed by the Jewish liar and document thief Robert M.W. Kempner at Nuremberg.

And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed, if all records told the same tale, then the lie passed into history and became truth. »Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.«

Roberto has responded to me and also Reinhard. He quotes the following from Wansee in response to me.

Under proper guidance, in the course of the final solution the Jews are to be allocated for appropriate labor in the East. Able-bodied Jews, separated according to sex, will be taken in large work columns to these areas for work on roads, in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes. The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Jewish revival (see the experience of history.)

While these passages expressly address only the fate of the able-bodied Jews capable of working, the intended fate of non-Jews is implicit. If the working Jews were to be "eliminated by natural causes" (i.e. worked to death) and the survivors were eventually to be "treated accordingly" (i.e. killed), there can be no doubt that the non-working and therefore useless Jews were to be "treated accordingly" right away.

Roberto clearly is reading too much into something. At most all one can get out of that statement is that there are Jews who are able to do work. The final remnant are those who will RESIST being put to work. Only able bodied people can resist after all. So these Jews will be punished with death for daring to die on their feet than lives on their knees. They will be punished to scare the other able bodied Jews into not resisting.

I find Roberto's claim of this to be a passage in Wansee proving planned extermination of the Jews odd since he says the following later.

The Wannsee Conference was not a "planned genocide meeting" in the sense that genocide was decided upon or its execution organized there. It was a coordination meeting meant to announce the program to high-ranking figures in various state entities and assure their support for the administrative tasks that the program required.

Moving on.

Roberto says this about Hoess.

Hoess was tortured by the British MPs when they captured him in March 1946, that’s true. The torture was also related to the deposition protocol he signed on that occasion, according to Hoess’ memoirs that he later wrote in Polish captivity. But he provided a more detailed account of mass killings at Auschwitz-Birkenau when testifying as defense witness for Kaltenbrunner at the Nuremberg Trial on 15 April 1946, without having been exposed to any torture at that time (he actually called his stay at the IMT a "rest cure" compared to what he had been through before in his memoirs).

So he gets tortured, then one month later, there is no longer a threat of torture over his head as he's about to go to Nuremburg. In other words, Hoess had every reason to believe that the savages who harmed him the first time, wouldn't be allowed to do it again, or that others would follow suit if he didn't play ball. Hoess was not stupid. He saw that he was tortured in relation to the 'deposition protocol' as Roberto puts it. Then he realized a trial was coming up and he would have to be kept in custody somewhere again. He also knew that when he was in custody before, he was tortured. He used inductive reasoning and decided to play ball since he knew he was likely going to be sentenced to death - and therefore wanted to die with as little pain in what was left of his life as possible. That's the reality that Roberto can't handle. He'll do anything to salvage the words of a man who was tortured. Funny how Roberto would also argue that Jews couldn't possibly ever have been properly convicted of blood libels due to testimony extracted from torture. And yet, he would abandon this standard when it comes to Hoess on the, as we have seen, flimsiest of pretexts.

Given what happened to others, it's not surprising Eichmann would say what he said at his trial. He also saw what happened, like Hoess saw what happened to himself before, and Eichmann was not stupid. He too wanted to have his death sentence with as little pain as possible in what was left of his life. What's funny is that Roberto also proves he can't read my posts very well. I brought up testicular torture of other Nazis and then used the general statement that a man will say anything when someone is going after his testicles. To which Roberto said, "And who is supposed to have been crushing Eichmann’s testicles, assuming he had any?" All I can say to that is, nice straw man.

Drew J wrote:Thats why Rudolf Hoess confessed to killing 2 million at Auschwitz, even though the number has been since brought down to well under 1 million.

Roberto:Actually no competent researcher of documentary and demographic evidence accepts a number "well under" 1 million, and the first one to bring the number to the order of 1 million was Hoess himself in his pre-trial interrogations in Poland. Is Drew J trying to tell us that the Poles squeezed Hoess’ testicles into doing that and furthermore pooh-poohing their own 4 million estimate as even further above the mark?

Translation: Piper and the rest of the people at the Auschwits museum who brought the figures down at not competant and are probably anti semites.What you see on the plaque is not what Hoess 'confessed' to. Deal with it.

Drew J wrote:We aren't even shown to us what these unique markings on other allegedly authentic documents are that you also find on the surviving Wansee page.

Roberto:If Drew J is interested in markings and such, I suggest he contact the House of the Wannsee Conference or help himself to the opinion of the scientific staff of the political archives of the Foreign Ministry. One shouldn’t expect to find everything on a website.

Or Roberto, you can do it yourself since you're so damn eager to quote him. Trying to get me to do your work for you, huh? Where have I seen that before? Oh right. Here.

Roberto:As soon as Drew J has explained by what rules or standards of evidence or what logic I would have to "show" chemical analysis backing up Kola's conclusions to prove that these conclusions are accurate, I might try to get access to the archives in question.

Drew J:Here again we see Roberto pulling the same trick that most believers of the holocaustianity religion do. Demand that we clarify what evidence we would need, and then he would decide if it's worth getting. Funny how he says earlier that I ignore evidence. Therefore if that's the case, then he shouldn't want to listen to my idiot demands since they would by implication of his earlier words be necessarily idiotic. He should get the evidence himself and then shove it in my face, Gerdes, Bradley Smith's and the face of the rest of the world. Since he can't or won't be able to support his case, he pulls a trick and tries to make it all hang on me. Whatever it is, he should get it regardless of what an apparent moron like me would think. If I'm a moron, my opinion shouldn't matter or affect the evidence that's just waiting on a man like Roberto to be released to the world.

Drew J wrote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------We are however informed about many contradictions and inconsistencies in this essay however. So, what "contradictions and inconsistencies" are supposed to be indicative of forgery? That the Nazis mentioned road-building projects (which they indeed had in mind at the time and which lots of Jews were worked to death in carrying out – Ney obviously never heard of the Durchgangstrasse IV project)? That the conference overestimated the number of Jews in Europe as 11 million (which was just about 1 ½ million above the mark, notwithstanding Ney’s idiotic-mendacious babbling about 7 or 2.5 million)? Big $*!$$$+ deal. That the Jews being "removed as quickly as possible" doesn’t match with their "constructing roads as they go"? Poor Ney apparently cannot read, otherwise he would have noticed that a) road-building was meant for the Jews able to work alone and b) State Secretary Bühler pointed out that most Jews in the General Government were not able to work. Of maybe he did and indulged in some good old quote-mining to make a "point", for Ney omitted this part of the reference to Bühler’s statement in the protocol (emphasis mine):

[i]State Secretary Dr. Boehler stated that the General Government would welcome it if the final solution of this problem could be begun in the General Government, since on the one hand transportation does not play such a large role here nor would problems of labor supply hamper this action. Jews must be removed from the territory of the General Government as quickly as possible, since it is especially here that the Jew as an epidemic carrier represents an extreme danger and on the other hand he is causing permanent chaos in the economic structure of the country through continued black market dealings. Moreover, of the approximately 2 1/2 million Jews concerned, the majority is unfit for work. [i/]

So much for Mr. Ney’s reliability as concerns "contradictory content". One might think there’s a reason for the fellow’s surname or pseudonym rhyming with "lie". All the sadder for true believers like Drew J, who uncritically swallow such nonsense hook, line and sinker.

About this transnistria. Basically, two pro German Romanians based in the area of Ukraine, were responsible for deporting a bunch of sick and feeble Jews along lousy roads where they just killed them and left them there.

Transnistria was a geographic freak, but a historic reality. The name was coined by the Fascists to designate a territory of about 16,000 square miles, designated for the annihilation of Jews deported from Romania. It was an area situated in south-western Ukraine, between the River Dniester to the west, the River Bug to the east, the Black Sea to the south, and a line beyond the city of Moghilev - Podolsky to the north. In Romanian the river is called Nistru. TRANS-NISTRIA meant "beyond the River Dniester". The name Transnistria was decreed into existence by the Romanian dictator, Marshal Ion Antonescu, in the summer of 1941. Territorially, Transnistria was the largest killing field in the Holocaust. Many authors refer to it as "The Romanian Auschwitz". The name of that territory was in existence until the spring of 1944, when the Soviet Army re-conquered southern Ukraine.

The SettingThe territory consisted of about 132 Ukrainian towns and villages the names of which appear on maps. Hundreds of hamlets and settlements were too small to be noted on maps. However, all of them became concentration, transit, labour or annihilation camps. Furthermore, a camp could have been designated as a labour or death camp at one point in time, and at other times it could have been a transit or concentration camp.

Some of those who reached the crossing points were simply herded into the river and machine- gunned. The majority were transported across the Dniester on bridges, over-crowded barges or rafts. Romanian gendarmes supervised the crossing of the Dniester, while German officers stood around taking photographs.

"The directives concerning the implementation of the deportation operations were drawn up by General Topor in accordance with secret verbal instructions from Antonescu. They were transmitted to commanders -- usually officers of the Gendarmerie (Romanian: consemn special) in charge of the Jewish convoys. The general staff of the Romanian army was ordered 'to shoot the Jews who are not able to keep up with the pace of the convoys either due to weakness or sickness'. The directives also contained a provisions whereby, two days prior to the departure of each convoy, gendarmes were to be dispatched ahead, and, with the aid of local residents, they would prepare 'one pit for roughly 100 dead every ten kilometres. Those executed for lagging behind the convoy could be buried there.'

The deportations commenced on September 16, 1941, and proceeded, more or less to Antonescu's satisfaction, with the exception of acts of looting and rape by the soldiers, and attacks by Romanian peasants on Jews in the convoys. Antonescu prohibited looting, since he considered Jewish property as 'state property' - (Romanian: averea statului). In Bessarabia, local residents used to 'buy' a live Jew from the gendarmes for 2,000 lei (Romanian currency) in order to get his clothes after the soldiers shot him."<20>

Once on the east side of the river, in Transnistria, soldiers herded the victim -- men, women, children, the elderly, sick, crippled, and mentally handicapped -- along the muddy dirt roads. They were aimlessly driven from village to village, often back to the previous village, and then back to the one they had been before. One by one, people who could not keep up with these death marches, known as convoys, were shot or beaten to death. Many bodies were thrown into ditches or mass graves, or simply left on the roads for the wild animals.

Many deportees died of exhaustion, cold, hunger and illnesses before they reached the camps. In the camps, rampant epidemics of dysentery killed thousands. Many found shelter in animal barns, horse stalls, sheds and shacks, where they lived in the most crowded and dirty conditions. People moved about covered with rags and newspapers, having exchanged their clothes for food. Some were almost naked and bare-foot in frosts of 40 degrees below zero.

Thousands were taken into fields and forests, ordered to dig enormous mass graves, and shot. Those who dumped the bodies into the graves were shot after their job was done; they were barely covered with dirt. At times the earth would move from people who were buried while still alive. The following numbers of Jews murdered by shooting speak for themselves "In Domanovka --18,000; in Bogdanovka -- 48,000; in Acmechetka -- 5,000; in Vertujeni -- 23,000; in Odessa -- 25,000; in Dalnik --16,000."<21> Thousands more were shot along the River Bug.

Who were the German superiors of these two Romanians who were the architects, Topor and Antonescu, who eventually got back to the real high Germans like Himmler, Goebbels and Heydrich after Wansee and said, "hey, you needn't worry about building roads for Jews after they go. Just do what they did in Ukraine with Topor and Antonsecu." Or did these Romanians have direct communication with the higher up Nazis who would have been at Wansee? And if they did, or it was their alleged superiors who spoke to Berlin, why didn't they let the wansee plotters know of how little importance road conditions are when you are supposed to be moving them out to a new place to kill them before the conference? Regardless of whether these Romanians or their alleged existing Nazi superiors had connections to the higher up types in Berlin who'd be at Wansee, how could such a perfect, evil plot, avoid getting into the hands of the Nazis for so long, who had apparently already decided to wipe out all the Jews even before they got to Wansee and were in a rush to do it?

This started in September 1941 in Ukraine. Wansee was January 1942 in Germany. So what is Roberto saying? That the idea of building roads as they go for Jews they are getting out of Germany is absurd given how they didn't care about road conditions in regards to transnistria? Why did he bring up this historical tidbit at all if that wasn't his reason for doing so? If they mentioned this possibilty at Wansee, then why does Roberto bring up this bit of Ukranian-Romanian Nazi collaboration about deporting Jews along shitty roads just to kill them at all? Seems like if they wanted to build roads as stated in wansee, what happened earlier in September 1941 in Ukraine wasn't on their minds. However, if Roberto is trying to imply with this historical tidbit that roads in good condition didn't matter to the Nazis, then why would they mention the possibility of constructing roads for Jews as they go at all since they didn't seem to care with this September 1941 Ukraine transnistria thing? What is Roberto really getting at here?

Speaking of his problems with Ney, Roberto has the following to say.

Poor German my ass. Contrary to what Mr. Ney tries to make believe, there is nothing in the protocol that suggests a foreign author to a native speaker of the language like myself. What the protocol may be considered to shows signs of is the Nazi bureaucratic parlance that Victor Klemperer referred to as Lingua Tertii Imperii – something that ignoramus Ney probably never heard of either.

Click on the hyperlink and we get here.

LTI - Lingua Tertii Imperii: Notizbuch eines Philologen (1947) is a book by Victor Klemperer, Professor of Literature at the University of Dresden. The title, half in Latin and half in German, translates to The Language of the Third Reich: A Philologist's Notebook.

Lingua Tertii Imperii studies the way that Nazi propaganda altered the German language to inculcate people with National-Socialist ideas. The book was written under the form of personal notes which Klemperer wrote in his diary, especially from the rise of the Nazi regime in 1933, and even more after 1935, when Klemperer, stripped of his academic title because he was Jewish (under the Nuremberg Laws), had to work in a factory and started to use his diary as a personal exit to his frustrating and miserable life.

LTI shows a German language twisted into a Newspeak-like language. It also demonstrates how the new language came to be naturally spoken by most of the population. On the reverse, the text also emphasizes the idea that resistance to oppression begins by questioning the constant use of buzzwords. Both the book and its author unexpectedly survived the war. LTI was first published in 1947 in Germany.

Roberto then also asks about Ney's take on wansee, what lingustic problems in the document? I can not only given an answer with some Ney excerpts, but I can also say one more thing before I copy and paste Ney. I sure hope that soon Roberto will take direct examples of phrases Ney has a problem with, find them in Klemperer's book, and then explain everything away one bit at a time, instead of just putting an interesting lingustic theory out there without any hard exmples and evidence to support his 'refutation' of Ney's problems with German. With that in mind, let me close by quoting some stuff from Ney.

3.2 Analysis of the Wannsee Conference Protocol

3.2.2 Linguistic Content

The Wannsee Conference Protocol is a treasure-trove of stylistic howlers which indicate that the authors of this paper were strongly influenced by the Anglo-Saxon i.e. British English language. In the following we will identify only the most glaring of these blunders; many of them have been pointed out by all the authors consulted, so that a specific reference frequently does not apply.

The expressions "im Hinblick" ("considering",* 8 times), "im Zuge" ("in the course of", 5 times), "Lösung" ("solution", 23 times), "Fragen" ("questions", 17 times), "Problem" (6 times), "Bereinigen" ("to clarify", 4 times), frequently even more than once in the same sentence, bear witness to such a poor German vocabulary that one may assume the author to have been a foreigner.

Further, the expressions "Lösung der Frage" ("solution of the problem"), "der Lösung zugeführt" ("brought near to a solution"), "Lösungsarbeiten" ("tasks involved" [in a solution; -trans.]), "Regelung der Frage" ("to settle the question"), "Regelung des Problems" ("to settle the problem"), "restlose Bereinigung des Problems" ("absolutely final clarification of the question" [i.e. the "problem"; - trans.]), "Mischlingsproblem endgültig bereinigen" ("securing a final solution of the problem presented by the persons of mixed blood"), "praktische Durchführung" ("practical execution"; is there such a thing as a theoretical execution?), and especially the frequent repetition of these expressions, are not at all the German style (Walendy(8)).

Were all of these people common laborers? (Ney(10)) "Salaried employees" is probably what the author meant here. "[...] als Staatsarbeiter angestellt" (the Nuremberg Translation renders this as "employed by the state", which glosses over the difference between "Arbeiter", i.e. blue-collar workers, and "angestellt", i.e. the condition of employment enjoyed by salaried and public employees; -trans.): so what were they, laborers or government employees? Did the author mean civil servants? (Ney, ibid.)

In German these are called "freie Berufe", not "private Berufe". Such persons are known as doctors, journalists, and artists. "usw." is never preceded by a comma in German, whereas the English "etc." almost always is.

"Die sich im Altreich befindlichen [...]"

Well, German is a difficult language. (Ney, ibid.)

3.2.3 Contradictory Content"[...] werden die [...] Juden straßenbauend in diese Gebiete geführt": literally, "the Jews will be taken to these districts, constructing roads as they go".

Migratory road crews?! Not a single road was constructed in this fashion! (Wahls(7) and Walendy(8))*

Even the orthodox prevailing opinion holds that there were never more than 7 million Jews in Hitler's sphere of influence. In actual fact there were only about 2.5 million. (Wahls(7) and Walendy(8))(19)

Göring did have the authority to appoint Heydrich to the position of his choice, but he would have done so via the proper channels. Heydrich's superior was Himmler, and it would have taken Himmler's orders to appoint ("ernennen", not "bestellen", which means "to summon") Heydrich to anything. (Ney(10))

"Mit der Endlösung im Generalgouvernement zu beginnen, weil hier das Transportproblem keine übergeordnete Rolle spielt [...] Juden müßten so schnell wie möglich aus dem Gebiet des Generalgouvernements entfernt werden" ("[...] the implementation of the final solution [...] could start in the Government General, because the transportation problem there was of no predominant importance. [...] The Jews had to be removed as quickly as possible from the territory of the Government General [...]"

"To be removed as quickly as possible" and "constructing roads as they go" is quite a contradiction. But none of those attending the conference spoke up. Clearly Germany could muster only mental defectives as her Under Secretaries of State! (Walendy(8))

"Von den in Frage kommenden 2

"[...] Dr. Bühler stellte weiterhin fest, daß die Lösung der Judenfrage im Generalgouvernement federführend beim Chef der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD liegt [...]" ("[...] Bühler further stated that the solution of the Jewish question in the Government General as far as issuing of orders was concerned was dependent upon the chief of the Security Police and the SD [...]".

On the date of the conference at Wannsee Bühler could not have known this, for according to the 'Protocol' Heydrich had only just "announced his appointment as delegate" and his overall authority for the preparations involved. Dr. Bühler certainly did not have the authority to simply declare his superior, Dr. Hans Frank, the Governor General of Poland, removed from office! (Walendy, ibid.)

"Der Beginn der einzelnen Evakuierungsaktionen wird weitgehend von der militärischen Entwicklung abhängig sein" ("The carrying out of each single evacuation project of a larger extent will start at a time to be determined chiefly by the military development").

This statement is false, for the eastward evacuation transports of Jews from the Reich territory, including the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, had already been ongoing since October 1941 - as Heydrich's first invitation to the Wannsee conference had explicitly stated, by the way. (Walendy, ibid.)

"Die berufsständische Aufgliederung der im europäischen Gebiet der UdSSR ansässigen Juden war etwa folgende [...]" ("The breakdown of Jews residing in the European part of the USSR, according to trades, was approximately as follows [...]"

This clearly gives away the forger, at work years after the conference; at the time of the Wannsee Conference one would not have written "was", but "is". (Tiedemann(11))

3.2.4 Internal Consistency

Why were only the "seconds-in-command" invited to this conference if it was really so crucial, and why did not even these seconds-in-command bother to attend? Why, for example, would Dr. Hans Frank send, as his stand-in, Dr. Bühler, who lacked the authority to make any decisions since he was obliged to report anything of significance to his superior? (Tiedemann, ibid.)

Is it conceivable that subordinates decided on the genocide? (Tiedemann, ibid.)

Why was no one invited from offices whose cooperation would have been indispensable to the implementation of such an enormous murder scheme, such as the top management of the German Railway? (Tiedemann, ibid.)

3.3 The Accompanying Letter

3.3.1 Form

Like the Wannsee Conference Protocol, the accompanying letter reveals at first glance that it cannot be genuine: the letter is dated January 26, 1942, but the letterhead shows reference number 1456/41. Thus the letter was registered at the office of the Chief of the Security Police and the SD in 1941, before the protocol that it was to accompany (Weckert,(9) Ney,(10) Tiedemann(11)). There are 35 days between the date of the letter and the date of its arrival at the Foreign Office, given a delivery route within Berlin and a subject matter Heydrich has called urgent! (Weckert,(9) Ney,(10) Tiedemann(11)) Luther, however, added a handwritten comment (to be examined later) to this letter even before it was received by the correspondence department of the Foreign Office; this handwritten comment is dated with the month "II", i.e. February (the day is illegible). (Weckert,(9) Ney(10)) Like the conference protocol itself, the letter bears a rubber stamp recording its receipt at the Foreign Office, with the reference number D.III29g.Rs, which, however the Foreign Office had already assigned to a different document it had received, namely to a report dated January 6, 1942, sent by the German envoy in Copenhagen. (Ney, ibid.)

The letter is missing the sender's address, which is normally printed on the stationery. The new meeting place in the Kurfürstenstraße is incorrectly spelled with an "ss" rather than an "ß". The typed-in sender's reference number, "IV B 4", indicates Eichmann's office, but Eichmann used stationery which had this identifier already printed on it. The letterhead is different from that of the two letters of invitation. The letter lacks a "re.:"-line and a distributor. This "accompanying letter" makes no mention of 30 copies of the protocol whose 16th copy it allegedly accompanies. The space to indicate enclosures - though provided for in the stamp of receipt - is empty, even though this letter was supposed to accompany an enclosure of momentous importance. (Ney, ibid.) Ripske has criticized that there were no "Undersecretaries of State" ("Unterstaatssekretär") at the German Foreign Office; this rank had been done away with during the Weimar Republic, and was never reintroduced.(20)

3.3.2 Linguistic Content

The accompanying letter as well shows a pathetically un-German style: "practical execution of the final solution" - is there any such thing as a theoretical execution? (Tiedemann(11)) And again we encounter this redundant sentence with its long-winded description of the tasks involved: "[...] the organizational, factual, and material prerequisites for the practical commencement of the tasks involved." What this calls for, then, is: the detailed discussion of the preparation of the submission of the prerequisites for the practical commencement of the tasks involved. (Ney(10)) No comment necessary.

3.3.3 Contradictory Content

The protocol is titled "Minutes of Discussion", and if it were genuine, that would be precisely the right description. Today even the officially sanctioned historians concede that nothing at all was decided at the conference, in other words, that it was not as highly significant as is sometimes claimed.(21) The accompanying letter, however, now suddenly refers to "arrangements made". It further claims that "the essentials have been decided on." But nothing could be decided there. (Tiedemann,(11) Walendy(8))

3.3.4 Internal Consistency

Even though Göring is said to have called for haste in July 1941 ("soon"), his orders are carried out in rather lackadaisical fashion. But suddenly speed is of the essence: the next discussion is set for March 6. (Ney,(10) Tiedemann(11))

3.3.5 The Slip-up

Two versions of the accompanying letter are in circulation. The first was submitted by Kempner,(5) while the second is held at the Foreign Office in Bonn. In terms of content they are identical, but there is incontrovertible proof that both versions are fabrications:

Each of the two versions was typed on a different typewriter. The typists tried to make their keystrokes, line breaks and text format identical, and it is unknown who copied from whom in the process. But even this did not quite work: the "Heil Hitler" is shifted by one space, the "Ihr" preceding the signature by another. The signature itself - whether genuine (not likely) or done with a facsimile stamp - has slipped badly.

On closer examination one finds even more differences: the spacing between the two major paragraphs; the underlines, which are supposed to be identical but don't quite manage to be so; the slightly different "6" in the meeting date. The discrepancy between 'SS' in the one version and the runic ' ' in the other is already familiar to us from the protocol itself. Typing mistakes galore populate the second half of this line:

"ich am 6. März 1942, 10.30 Uhr , in Berlin,Kurfürsten-".

The other version reads:

"ich am 6. März 1942, 10.30 Uhr. in Berlin, Kurfürsten-".

Clearly: it was supposed to be identical, but the attempt failed somewhat.*

To expose this fraud conclusively, one needs a ruler. This reveals: the rubber stamp on each version is perfectly identical, but in the 'SS' version it is stamped precisely parallel to the typed lines while in the '[..]' version it droops down and to the left at about a 3 degree angle.

And the most conclusive proof: no one can write a multi-line text by hand twice in such a way that both versions are precisely and absolutely identical! But the handwritten comments added by Luther, running diagonally across the page in both versions, are identical. However, these handwritten comments are not in the exact same position on both versions, and are of different size. This proves irrefutably that both versions are fake. The forger had separate access to the three text elements - text, stamp, and handwriting. He compiled both versions, but unfortunately he could not make them exactly alike. It's not difficult to guess why he might try this in the first place, though: the older version, submitted to the IMT by Kempner, has the Latin-font 'SS', while the version that surfaced at the Foreign Office later has the runic '[..]', which seems more genuine; the forger no doubt wished to correct his earlier carelessness, and in the process went a little overboard!

To Drew J:"About this transnistria. Basically, two pro German Romanians based in the area of Ukraine, were responsible for deporting a bunch of sick and feeble Jews along lousy roads where they just killed them and left them there."

DrewJ then goes on to inform us where 135,000 Jews were shot in transnistria in late 1941.

I must ask DrewJ to come forward with real evidence of these "shootings" with their "enormous" gravesites. We do not accept mere statements or quotes but expect hard proof.

This is what Roberto is saying back to me. But Reinhard, he has responded to you too. For one thing, Roberto claims to have found mention of Heydrich in that digital scan of Wansee. You should address that.

Actually not, as he was no longer in the custody of those "savages" but in the custody of the IMT. Furthermore it had not been the IMT or the prosecution that had prompted him to testify on 15 April 1946. It had been the defense of Mr. Kaltenbrunner, which of course expected him to testify in favor of its client.

Roberto still expects us to believe that Hoess believed he was out of the woods after he was tortured the first time. Yeah right.

Hoess was not prompted to speak out at Nuremberg by anyone who could theoretically have tortured him into making incriminating statement. He was requested to speak out by Kaltenbrunner’s defense attorney in defense of Kaltenbrunner.

And if he didn't speak, he would have likely been tortured as other nazis obviously were. Need I remind you again of what was in Austin App's book?

Page 25-26

Quote:How Affidavits were Extorted and Perjury Encouraged

Affidavits, like those to which Time refers, are unreliable, often outright frauds, like the figure of six million itself. With a few heroic exceptions, all affidavits by Jews are in part or whole perjured, often well rewarded, and altogether unreliable. Affidavits from Germans, including from former Nazis, were rather customarily obtained by threatening the witness with hanging if he did not incriminate his superior sufficiently for hanging.

After Simon Wiesenthal, one of the best known prosecutors and persecutors of Germans is Dr. Robert Kempner, who seems to exploit dual American and German citizenship...After the war, he turned up as a prosecutor of Germans at Nuremburg, a particularly unscrupulous one, who is still at it. His nasty method of extorting incriminating affidavits against the more important Nazi leaders is illustrated in the case of Dr. Friedrich Gaus, many years a minor official in the German foreign office. Dr. Kempner wanted him to testify falsely in order to get his superior Ribbentrop hanged. When Gaus complained that he could not honestly to testify, Kempner replied:

The Russians are very interested in you, Mr. Gaus! For your violation of International Agreements! The only way for you to save your head, is that you tell the truth. Or do you wish as the right hand of Ribbentrop to go to the gallows? You know the old German saying, 'Captured with him, hanged with him!' Who were after Ribbentrop, the most guilty in the Foreign Office. Just say it; it serves no purpose, to spare these people.

Whereupon the terrified Gaus incriminated Ribbentrop as Kempner wished; - and thereby secured immunity! He was immediatly released from solitary arrest and moved to the witness portion of the Nuremburg court. (See: "U.S. Anklaeger Kempner schwer belasted." Deutsche Wochenzeitung Fed. 23, 1973).

Hoess has every reason to believe that he would be tortured again if he didn't go along.

Actually it would be more realistic to expect Hoess to retract what he had earlier stated under torture

But he didn't because he had every reason to fear he'd go through it again. It doesn't matter that he described IMT internment as a rest cure and relatively better than what he went through before. You think after he'd been tortured before, he'd have the nerve to complain about anything? It's so obvious that it's no longer trying to help you see the light on this subject.

I wouldn’t accept any testimony extracted under torture except perhaps to the extent that it is corroborated by evidence independent of the interrogators, but the depositions of Hoess before the IMT or in Poland were not motivated by torture or the threat or fear of torture, notwithstanding Drew J’s baseless conjectures to the contrary.

What is this "blood libels" crap doing here, by the way? I know Drew J is rambling away because he hates Jews, but I’m nevertheless surprised about his apparent preparedness to believe in Jewish human sacrifices.

Once again Roberto reads too much into what I am saying and thus constructs another straw man. Much like how Kurland read too much into my post here on CODOH. He accused me of believing in those Ukranian atrocities without evidence just because I summarized the historical event. And now you Roberto are assuming I believe in blood libels just because I mention them. No, I am using it as an example to show your double standards regarding testimony extracted by torture. Once again, nice straw man.

Actually Drew J seems to be the one who abandons his standards when it comes to allegations of Jewish human sacrifice. He shouldn’t project his double-standards onto me.

I will be the first to admit that this idea seems outlandish to me. But this is not the place to discuss it. Suffice to say, when you have Jews like Ariel Toaff who claim it happened and was done by mystical, occult, kabbalistic Jews, then maybe there is something to it. Just maybe. Moving on.

Actually I have no doubt that torture happened on occasion, but I still have to see evidence that it was systematically applied let alone a matter of policy. That’s what I asked our torture freak – who for some reason seems to be particularly obsessed with "testicular torture" - this question, which he is conveniently ignoring

Now Roberto admits that torture happened. That's a good start for him. But he ruins it when he tries to score a rhetorical victory by saying that testicular torture gets me off or something like that.

It would be interesting to see for just how many Nazis Drew J can provide evidence that they were "tortured into confessing outlandish things", just to see how big his leap of faith is here. After all the Allies interrogated thousands of Nazis, not to mention West German courts at later criminal investigations.

Once again, read Austin App's SIX MILLION SWINDLE for a small start.

Drew J wrote:What's funny is that Roberto also proves he can't read my posts very well. I brought up testicular torture of other Nazis and then used the general statement that a man will say anything when someone is going after his testicles. To which Roberto said, "And who is supposed to have been crushing Eichmann’s testicles, assuming he had any?" All I can say to that is, nice straw man.

Roberto:It’s not my fault if Drew J cannot properly express himself in the English language, for the context in which he brought up his ball-squeezing thing suggested that poor Adolf was having his balls squeezed:

This is hilarious since i just busted you making another straw man because you're the one who can't read.

Why, if the Poles were exerting undue pressure on him during interrogatory, would Hoess have challenged their claims as he did in this passage of his notes about "The Final Solution of the Jewish Question in Auschwitz Concentration Camp"? (Constantine FitzGibbon’s translation, emphases mine):

Rudolf Höß wrote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I myself never knew the total number and I have nothing to help me make an estimate of it. I can only remember the figure involved in the larger actions, which were repeated to me by Eichmann or his deputies. From Upper Silesia and Polish territory under German rule … 250,000Germany and Theresienstadt … 100,000Holland … 95,000 Belgium … 20,000France … 110,000 Greece … 65,000Hungary … 400,000 Slovakia … 90,000I can no longer remember the figures for the smaller actions, but they were insignificant in comparison with the numbers given above. I regard a total of two and a half millions as far too high. Even Auschwitz had limits to its destructive possibilities. Figures given by former prisoners are figments of the imagination and lack any foundation.

He confesses to two and a half million. Then he confesses to two million. Then the Auschwitz curators reduce that number to around one million. Plus Hoess was also tortured before. His confession was not written in his native language. Clearly he was under pressure. Roberto however will have none of that. Torture of Germans is okay.

Why, if he was being tortured, would Hoess have slapped his interrogators in the face like that? I would expect a tortured man to have said the exact opposite, i.e. that his earlier figure of 2.5 million as too low and the Soviet/Polish estimate of 4 million was correct (which was what the Poles would have liked him to say),

If that's what the Poles would have liked him to say, then why didn't they pressure him to say it? Didn't they pressure him to say only about two million? Or did they pressure him to say it and wouldn't, and they said, "Oh well blaming him for two million is good enough. After all two million is too high anyway."

also because he knew he would be hanged anyway, whether it was for one million or 2.5 million or 4 million murdered people. Instead he gave partial figures adding up to 1,130,000 victims, said that the smaller actions didn’t raise the figure to much more than that, and furthermore stated that the Soviet/Polish estimate was based on "figments of the imagination" and "lack any foundation".

Well if he was going to be hanged anyway, then wouldn't that explain why the poles wouldn't put up a fuss if he wasn't going to assent to four million? After all, the poles knew about Hoess' torture and that he was their bitch.

As to Mr. Piper, I didn’t know he had brought the death toll figure down to "well under" 1 million. Here’s what Van Pelt tells us about Piper’s research (emphases added):

Van Pelt is a joke for the following reason.

Let us begin with van Pelt's omission. In his book van Pelt published some of Olere's more important sketches regarding the structure and operation of the alleged gas chambers, but failed to include one of his most important drawings. It is the painting showing the Sonderkommmandos opening the gas chamber door and pulling the bodies out after a mass gassing. In the painting, the inmates are shirtless, and they are not wearing any gas masks, rubber gloves or protective suits. Before proceeding, the reader is strongly urged to view and study the sketch in question. It is online at the address in this footnote. Scroll down to "Document 30."10

Pressac includes this painting in his book because it allegedly is an important visual record of the operation of the gas chambers. In regard to this matter, he wrote: "The fragment of furnace shown on the left, beyond the two arrows, is purely symbolic (there was no furnace in the basement) and spoils a scene which would have been irreproachable without this addition 'to make it better.'" Pressac is clearly saying that this sketch is an accurate picture of what happened, even though it does contain one purely symbolic item.11

This is a strange omission on the part of van Pelt. That is to say, he writes a book about the operation of the gas chambers, yet omits to include a sketch of "how-it-really-happened." For here we have an alleged sketch of "how-it-really-was" after a mass gassing, when the Sonderkommandos-under the watch and supervision of Nazi guards--opened the door of the gas chamber to remove the victims

Perhaps one reason that van Pelt failed to include this most important sketch is because he may have realized it could not have happened the way Olere claimed it did. Herewith.

I will say that after Roberto clarified what he meant about the road building, his argument does seem quite persuasive.

Before this spam-quoting he tries to reverse the burden of proof, claiming that I have to demonstrate that the Wannsee Conference Protocol contains LTI when actually it is Ney who has to demonstrate that the expressions used are such that no Nazi bureaucrat would have used and point to a foreign origin, as he claims. Nice try, my friend.

Actually Roberto, you have reversed the burden of proof. You are implying that the reason for those apparent strange sayings in German in Wansee is because of how the German language changed over time during the second world war. You pointed to this book that explained it as part of your reason for what you are saying. So you actually DO have to prove how each crazy German phrase Ney points out, has a reason behind it. Ney when he says there is a problem with the German, is justfied in agnosticism. But he will not be justified in agnosticism, if you can fulfill your burden of proof and show him how each phrase he has a problem with can be fully explained away by the work of that author, THEN you will have proven your point that Ney doesn't have much to go on.

Or an unimaginative German bureaucrat with a poor vocabulary. Eichmann neither was nor had to be a Goethe, and what matters in a minutes of meeting is clarity, not linguistic elegance. Pathetic argument.

Care to prove that he has poor German vocabulary since you just assumed a burden of proof with the utterance of this positive assertion? Care to also explain why you have to be like Goethe to speak and write in proper German? Weren't bureaucrats usually properly educated in high school and university in Germany? Shoudln't they have figured out how to properly use the German by then? Come on.

Ney wrote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------The phrase; "der allfällig endlich verbliebene Restbestand [...]" ("the possible final remnant")may perhaps appear in a prose text, but certainly not in the minutes of a conference.

Why, because Mr. Ney says so, or for some reason worth considering? "Allfällig", as Leo tells us, is an expression meaning "possible" used in Austria and Switzerland. Eichmann spent much of life in Austria, so it’s rather probable that he picked up the local vocabulary.

See Roberto, that's getting closer. But again. Only probable.

So we are supposed to rely on the opinion of Mr. Walendy (another "Revisionist" charlatan) about what is or is not "German style"?

Why not if he speaks German? Don't you also speak German? If so, shouldn't we all listen to you too when you translate German?

Ney wrote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------The text is interspersed with empty phrases such as; "Im Hinblick auf die Parallelisierung der Linienführung" ("in order to bring general activities into line") (Tiedemann(11))Bureaucrats like to use empty phrases to sound erudite, big deal.

Ney wrote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------and nonsensical claims such as; "Die evakuierten Juden werden Zug um Zug in [...] Durchgangsghettos gebracht [...]" ("The evacuated Jews will first be sent, group by group, into [...] transit-ghettos [...]").Since the evacuation of the Jews was not then ongoing, but rather was planned for the future, this would have to have read:"Die zu evakuierenden Juden [...]" ("The Jews to be evacuated [...]").Unless, of course, the author meant to say "the Jews [that will have been] evacuated", the term "evacuated" referring to the process of rounding up and departure alone and not including the arrival. Mr. Ney is feebly grabbing for straws here.

Ney wrote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Further: "Bezüglich der Behandlung der Endlösung" ("Regarding the handling of the final solution")How does one handle a solution? (Walendy(8))Like one handles a problem or the execution of a program or task, the term "Endlösung" being obviously used here as referring to a problem, program or task (the problem, program or task of implementing/bringing about the "final solution"). Mr. Walendy seems to be so senile that he should be taken off the circuit before he further makes a fool of himself (assuming he hasn't beaten the boots yet).

Ney wrote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Wurden die jüdischen Finanzinstitutionen des Auslands [...] verhalten [...]" Does the author mean "angehalten"?*Could be another Austrian particularity or a misreading of stenographic notes, but certainly not an indication of a foreign forger, unless the wisecracker can explain what foreign-language expression the "verhalten" is supposed to come from.

Ney wrote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Italien einschließlich Sardinien" ("Italy incl. Sardinia") Why the need to specify? In Europe people knew very well what all was part of Italy.Simple answer to a stupid question: why not, especially considering that Sardinia has a tradition of claiming autonomy from Italy? (Google "Sardinia autonomy").

Ney wrote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Die berufsständische Aufgliederung der [...] Juden: [...] städtische Arbeiter 14,8%" ("The breakdown of Jews [...] according to trades [...]: [...] communal workers 14.8%" [i.e. "municipal" workers; -trans.] Were all of these people common laborers? (Ney(10)) "Salaried employees" is probably what the author meant here. "[...] als Staatsarbeiter angestellt" (the Nuremberg Translation renders this as "employed by the state", which glosses over the difference between "Arbeiter", i.e. blue-collar workers, and "angestellt", i.e. the condition of employment enjoyed by salaried and public employees; -trans.): so what were they, laborers or government employees? Did the author mean civil servants? (Ney, ibid.)He probably meant civil servants and state employees without civil servant status. Rather than ask pointless questions, Ney should tell his readers why he expects the foreign forger of his fantasies to have used a Teutonic bureaucratic expression such as "berufsständisch". Ney wrote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"In den privaten Berufen - Heilkunde, Presse, Theater, usw." ("in private occupations such as medical profession, newspapers, theater, etc."). In German these are called "freie Berufe", not "private Berufe". Such persons are known as doctors, journalists, and artists. I wouldn’t put it beyond an Austrian to use the term "private" instead of "freie" here. But considering Leo’s translation choices for "freie Berufe", it is rather unlikely that an Anglo-Saxon forger would use this term. He might say "unabhängige Berufe" (independent professions), "liberale Berufe" (liberal professions) or just "Berufe" (professions).

Ney wrote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "usw." is never preceded by a comma in German, whereas the English "etc." almost always is. Was du da nicht sagst, alter Eumel. How come my spelling and grammatical checker (whether I use German or Austrian German) doesn’t point out a grammatical error there? And how about this (emphasis added)?

Ney wrote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Die sich im Altreich befindlichen [...]" Well, German is a difficult language. (Ney, ibid.) My spelling and grammar check shows no errors in either German or Austrian German. I guess what Ney is trying to tell us is that the "sich" before "befindlichen" is redundant and no true German (or Austrian?) would indulge in such redundancy. So let’s see what Google gets us for "sich befindlichen". First page: Getreue Abbildungen der zu Paris und Versailles sich befindlichen vornehmsten Prospecte, Statuen und kostbaren Wasserkünste nebst einer kurzen Beschreibung. ... dem Ephrates sich befindlichen Völker 'Ein Prospect des Rathauses in Batavia wie dasselbe von fornen anzusehen, sambt dessen Platzund liegenden Gebäuden, ohne die sich befindlichen Bäume' Maybe Eichmann was fond of antiquated expressions or used this one to make his writing look more erudite, assuming the expression didn’t survive in Austrian usage longer than it did in Germany. And maybe (though that’s far less likely) Mr. Ney can tell us from what English expression the Anglo-Saxon forger of his fantasies is supposed to have derived the "sich befindlichen". So we can conclude that Mr. Ney’s linguistic arguments are no better than the "contradictions and inconsistencies" baloney discussed above, some of these arguments being so primitive and silly as to raise doubts about the lucidity of Mr. Ney or his source Mr. Walendy. My well-meaning suggestion to Drew J is that he drop these gurus.

I appreciate your going through those Roberto. You seem to have convincing arguments saying how Rey may be grasping at straws. But to say that Eichmann was fond of antiquated expressions, which is the claim that buttresses many of your replies, requires further proof. Show me other parts of his writings, wherever they come from, to show other examples of him using German phrases that typically wouldn't be used, as revisionists like Ney say they wouldn't be typically used. What about some more cross references with other words of Eichmann in other places to back up your fairly interesting theory behind these German phrases Ney has a problem with?

Drew J wrote:This is what Roberto is saying back to me. But Reinhard, he has responded to you too. For one thing, Roberto claims to have found mention of Heydrich in that digital scan of Wansee. You should address that.

Do you mean this:

Roberto Mühlenkamp wrote:If there a reason why he should be, having presided over the conference and being mentioned in the text of the protocol starting on page 2?

Surprise, surprise! Noone denied that Heydrich is mentioned in the text of the protocol. But he isn't in the list of participants at the beginning of the protocol. Of course this is a severe mistake of that fabrication of Mr. Kempners, called "The Wannsee Protokoll". I don't need to explain, why the omission of the most senior alleged participant (and chairman) to that "conference" in the list of participants can't be explained by the obvious fact that he is mentioned later on in the text of that fake "document".

Moreover there is serious reason to believe that Heydrich even wasn't in Berlin that day. In fact we know that he was in Prague at 5 p.m. of that day (January 20th, 1942). There is no way to get there by car or by train in the time from the end of that strange "conference" at 2:30 or 3 p.m. Perhaps he could have made it by plane, but it would have been very close. Why should he have made appointments at 12 o'clock in Berlin and at 5 p.m. in Prague on a very cold winter day, if he easily could have avoided that?

Another hint that the alleged "invitiation" to that alleged "conference" is fake. Noone would have invited to a conference exactly at lunchtime and most certainly really noone who speaks German would have invited to a "Frühstück" (breakfast) after the end of that conference, i.e. in the midst of the afternoon.

Roberto Mühlenkamp wrote:Must have been a late brunch or a breakfast-like snack, then. Is that supposed to be an indication of forgery? If so, why?[...]

And you, my dear German-speaking (or not) wise guy, are kindly invited to grow a pair and continue writing on the thread of the RODOH forum where I am writing now, for as you well know I have no access to the stinking Cesspit you are writing from.

That's absolute nonsense. No native German speaker would call such a snack "Frühstück". Perhaps Mr. "Wise Guy"can come up with some evidence for such a meal in the middle of the afternoon having been or being called "Frühstück" in German language. He won't find any.

Greetings from the Führerbunker to the ghetto, Mr. Mühlenkamp!

And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed, if all records told the same tale, then the lie passed into history and became truth. »Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.«